linux-kernel - Re: [BUG REPORT] perf tools: x86_64: Broken calllchain when sampling taken at 'callq' instruction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:38:45 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>,
	lizefan 00213767 <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG REPORT] perf tools: x86_64: Broken calllchain when sampling
 taken at 'callq' instruction

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:28:26AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Not sure what you're getting at here. We don't need the uncorrected
> > instruction.
> 
> Well, we need it for stack unwinding, as you point it out:
> 
> > But the problem here is that we rewind the instruction stream, but not
> > the stack. And the stack unwinder is (obviously) interested in the stack
> > state.
> 
> Unwinding the stack state would fix it as well - but an equivalent solution would 
> be to pass along the original RIP would fix it as well: we'd have a 
> self-consistent pair of RIP/RSP.
> 
> Especially since unwinding the RSP is probably hard:
> 
> > I'm not sure we want (or need) to go undo the specific instruction's
> > stack effect in-kernel. If the !DWARF unwinders are similarly confused
> > we might need to put it in kernel (expensive *groan*). If its only the
> > DWARF muck then its something that can be done in userspace just
> > fine, although we might need to copy slightly more of the stack than SP
> > is pointing at, such that we can undo RET/POP etc. which would have data
> > beyond the head of stack.
> > 
> > The easiest solution might be to figure out the biggest stack offset for
> > any instruction and always capture that much over the head of stack.
> 
> so I think the problem here is that the RSP does not match up to the RIP. We can 
> either pass along the original RIP+RSP, or the fixed up one - but what we do 
> currently is that we pass along only half of it - which corrupts dwarf unwinding 
> state that doesn't tolerate such errors.

Still not sure what that gets you. Then you get a sample at a known
wrong location, why would you want that?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/